• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [],
  "type": "pressRelease",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran",
    "Israel",
    "North Africa",
    "Egypt",
    "Iraq",
    "Jordan",
    "Bahrain",
    "Kuwait",
    "Qatar",
    "Saudi Arabia",
    "United Arab Emirates"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Press Release

Dealing with Iran requires an effective regional strategy

Any effective U.S. diplomatic approach to Iran must involve other countries in the Gulf, but Washington will not succeed if it continues to strive for an anti-Iranian alliance. A normalization of relations between Iran and its neighbors is an important and attainable step for reintegrating Iran into the international community.

Link Copied
Published on Nov 12, 2009

WASHINGTON, Nov 12—Any effective U.S. diplomatic approach to Iran must involve other countries in the Gulf, but Washington will not succeed if it continues to strive for an anti-Iranian alliance. While an overall security arrangement including all Gulf countries is not possible at this stage, a normalization of relations between Iran and its neighbors is an important and attainable step for reintegrating Iran into the international community, Marina Ottaway concludes in a new paper.

Gulf countries can help engage Iran in negotiations, but messy and often significant divisions between them complicate efforts to normalize relations. Ottaway analyzes Iran’s relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman—as well as Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and Iraq.

Key Conclusions:

  • Despite common fears over Iran’s rising power and potential nuclear threat, GCC countries are neither united in their response nor willing to confront Iran in public. They vacillate between overtures of goodwill and disputes over borders, oil rights, and religious sectarianism.
  • The GCC has no leader in developing an Iran policy. Saudi Arabia, a natural choice because of its size and wealth, has a long history of cautious policies that maintain the status quo.
  • Egypt and Israel view Iran as a completely hostile entity and do nothing to hide their views, but it is unrealistic to anchor a regional strategy on their positions. Israel is not recognized by most of its neighbors, and Egypt faces a looming succession and diminished regional influence.
  • Despite a long history of animosity, Iraq’s relations with Iran are improving as Iran cultivates ties with Iraq’s now dominant Shi’i political factions. These ties have aroused suspicion among Iraq’s mainly Sunni neighbors and prevented Iraq’s full reintegration in the region.
  • The United States should not force the GCC countries to choose sides between the United States and Iran, nor Iraq and Iran.

“Although during the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program Gulf countries are essentially spectators to a process—the outcome of which will be determined by the United States, Iran, major European countries, Russia, and China—GCC countries have an important role to play in the difficult process of reintegrating Iran into the international community,” Ottaway writes. “Normalization of relations among the GCC countries, Iraq, and Iran would be a positive step in this process of reintegration. It would also help stabilize the region, decreasing tensions and the possibility of conflicts over bilateral issues that might trigger more serious problems.”

###


NOTES

  • Click here to read the paper online
  • Click here to read the paper in Arabic
  • Marina Ottaway, director of the Carnegie Middle East Program, specializes in democracy and post-conflict reconstruction issues, with special focus on problems of political transformation in the Middle East.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Program combines in-depth local knowledge with incisive comparative analysis to examine economic, socio-political, and strategic interests in the Arab world to provide analysis and recommendations in both English and Arabic that are deeply informed by knowledge and views from the region.
  • The Carnegie Middle East Center based in Beirut, Lebanon, aims to better inform the process of political change in the Middle East.
  • Carnegie's Arab Reform Bulletin offers a monthly analysis of political and economic developments in Arab countries.
  • Press Contact: David Kampf, 202/939-2233, dkampf@ceip.org
Foreign PolicyUnited StatesMiddle EastIranIsraelNorth AfricaEgyptIraqJordanBahrainKuwaitQatarSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab Emirates

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance Gap

    How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?

      Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

    The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

      Shruti Mittal

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.